Barry A. Warsaw <ba...@python.org> added the comment: On Sep 16, 2010, at 08:27 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: > >> I don't agree that it's a bad thing that sysconfig exposes >> implementation specific information - it seems kind of the point of >> it. > >Well, it exposes configuration information, for example paths (which >should exist in all VMs), but things like the existence of a .h file >seem implementation details that should not be public IMO. If that's the case, then where should this information be exposed? I think it needs to be exposed *somewhere*. You don't want people just guessing or reinventing all the file system search code that's already in sysconfig. I'm also not convinced that the paths and schemes are implementation agnostic. For example, you'd have to add schemes for each of the other implementations (and their variants, e.g. Jython installed on POSIX vs. Jython installed on Windows). And clearly, some of the scheme paths described in the module are pretty specific to autoconf's model of the world. (Does IronPython really have platinclude?) Now, I definitely have my own beefs about sysconfig's API, but it is what it is, so unless there's a clear alternative, I think sysconfig should expose information that will be useful for programmatically determining configuration details of the Python you're running. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9877> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
